BS: Secularity vs Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:38 PM

Come to think of it, what a concept! I am a septic system in the wonder of the universe....I tank therefore I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:19 PM

Nah, I think I'll just stick a hepa filter on my mouth and a seive on my ass and just carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:26 PM

Holy Moly, I will worship you from afar, because I don't know too many people who got what you got.

You are gonna be a salmonella system of pedagogical bitters. Do you need help? We're here for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:37 PM

brucie, you got it! but its cooks day off, so at least for today, I think I'll just be a coelomatic system of biological filters, sustained by solar and cosmic energy, until my filters finally get all gummed up and I die. For today at least, I will not bother to try to contemplate or comprehend from whence the infinite sustaining source of energy arose.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:57 PM

Same old troll. Same old tactic. Ask loaded questions. Pounce on the responder. I am glad you get your kicks doing this. Perfect example up towards the top. S/he lays the predicate. Poster asks if this philosophy allows something and s/he pounces. ALLOWED???

Give it up. This isn't about a discussion. It is about a bitter person who poisons every thread they are in.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:48 PM

Thanks, Jerry -- I wasn't being gracious; I was being a curmudgeon. For good and sufficient reason, but still.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:27 PM

Ah, but Amos:

You are always gracious..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: pdq
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:24 PM

My invisible buddy is better than your invisible buddy! Na na na nuh na na!! **sticking tongue out**

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:11 PM

Metchosin: "cosmic pantheist"

A space cadet that believes in cooking utensils?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:32 AM

Today I think I'll be a cosmic pantheist......I don't know what I'll be tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:05 AM

Well, I am sorry to have contributed to argumentation. I'll try to do better -- I am a bit sourminded these days. This too shall pass.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:07 PM

Hey, Strick:

I've bowed out of this, and the faith thread as they've just become arguments between three or four people. But, I thought I'd stick my head in for a minute. Guest also claimed that he/she had not referred to Christians, and that I was trying to make this a Christian issue. I went back and quoted three references to Christians in a single post of his/hers, with no acknowledgment.

An old debating ploy... say stuff, and then criticize people who respond to it by denying that you ever said it.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:52 PM

"I believe strongly in the separation of religion and state, and believe we need to go to the next level, which to me is to ban religion from participation in the public square."

Your exact words, Guest, cut and pasted here, no twisting possible. Please re-read your own first post.

I've never supported any amendment to the Constitution, only reacted to an absurd proposition. Likewise, I have no religious agenda and you'd be incredibly hard pressed to ever prove I'm a fundamentalist (of course, I know what the word means where you probably don't).

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM

"I'm addressing the plain words of the proposal Guest put forward: ban religion from participation in the public square."

I never used the word participation, and you keep twisting my words to suit your agenda. Which is why I quit participating in the conversation.

You have a religious agenda Strick, you just keep claiming it isn't religious.

We aren't that stupid. When you keep arguing for the same agenda fundamentalist Christians are arguing for, and using their very same arguments, people won't accept your claim that you aren't religious or religiously motivated.

Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 12:26 PM

Oh, I see your point. For some reason the logic that a Constitutional Amendment reserving the grace of civil recognition of marriage to heterosexuals only being linked to religious grounds seemed obvious to me, but your right -- it COULD conceivably be something else, even though it very likely isn't...well, it's not health, and it's not universal tradition, so I assume it is a cultural bias. But anyway, your point is well taken; I was jumping to a conclusion. Sorry.

And if your argument truly is that you want to make a Consittutional amendment just to preserve the tradition of heterosexual marriage, why bother? As a tradition it seems to have held its own fairly well, rampant serial divorce notwithstanding. Should we further encourage vanilla marriage by porposing a Consittutional amendment forbidding divorce? It would certainly reinforce tradition as it stood back in the 1600's.

A



A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 12:19 PM

"It's a matter for a court to decide whether the boundary line gets crossed or not, Strick. I think your batting at a straw man here."

No Amos, I'm addressing the plain words of the proposal Guest put forward: ban religion from participation in the public square. Then Guest says: "I believe, just as a current example, that the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, would be an instance of Congress making a law respecting estalishment of religion." Clearly this is the kind of thing Guest wants to ban, even prevent society from considering (even ignoring the fact that his example would be a Constitutional amendment, not a law, would have to be ratified by the states and as such not solely an act of Contress, and would not be subject to restiction by other clauses of the Constitution even if the 1st Amendment said what Guest wishes it did).

What if there's a diffence of opinion on why someone supports a given issue? I say I'm not suporting an issue for religious reasons, and Guest, who knows my mind better than I do, disagrees? The courts decide what's religious and what isn't and what I can support and what I can't? Anyone who doesn't like an issue can try to have it declared religous? How far would that be allowed to go?

For example, if I'm for making it illegal for bars to serve alcohol after 2 AM, am I just responding to the problems we've seen in my community or am I a Methodist who is against drinking and, not being able to prohibit drinking all the time, just looking to cut the number of hours people are allowed to? If religious arguments are prohibited from the public square as Guest says and we use your approach to deciding what is and isn't religious, all it takes is one judge to prevent the issue from even coming to a vote.

I realize that's not what Guest thought he was saying, but when you paint with a broadbrush, don't be offended when someone notices the problems with the fine lines.

BTW, you can take the Masonic trappings off the money anytime you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Kim C
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:31 PM

Well........... how do they do it in Turkey? There's a religious Muslim country with a secular goverment.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:44 PM

Could be...

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:21 PM

well! I am honored and pleased to be complimented by you and several other 'believers' of various descriptions. I also enjoy the discussions and trading of ideas....and, it behooves me to stay tolerant and reasonable, hmmm? Who knows, I might need several of you to vouch for me in the next life/incarnation/level of consciousness/ if I prove to be wrong...*grin*... "Awww...he's a good guy, he just had his higher consciousness disconnected when he was 9 by not eating his vegetables."
(That sounds a bit like Pascal's Wager, where he argues that it is 'safer' to believe in God, 'cause if God exists, you'll be MUCH better off....but 'ol Pascal missed a whole bunch of possibilities, and 'God' might be a cosmic pratical joker who is giggling at all our wild guesses.)

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:40 AM

Caught me trying to change the subject again, eh Bill? :-)

Yeah, I give the word "God" my own definition. And so does everybody else. People's usual error is that they assume someone else saying "God" means the same thing they mean when they say "God".

So, a "fundamentalist atheist" (my term for a certain mindset which is stridently opposed to religion or spirituality) who says "God" may mean by it:

God - that totally fictional and mythical entity imagined by some poor, deluded people to have created the Universe.

or

God - that fictional being made up by the churches in order to dominate and fleece the public

or

God - a fictional old guy with a long beard who sits in a fictional place called heaven and judges people's souls and casts people into a fictional hell

or

whatever...

Then the fundamentalist atheist says to me, "I don't believe in that God."

Well...duh! I don't either. But I do believe in God. The atheist's mistake is in assuming that "God" must necessarilly fall within the idiotic parameters that the atheist imagines other people must have assigned to the concept in the first place. He figures if they don't see it his way they must be very stupid. He is often wrong about that.

I'm not talking about you here, Bill. You're a tolerant and intelligent man, and not what I would call a fundamentalist atheist at all. I enjoy reading your comments.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:33 AM

That opens up another aspect of the argument. In Canada, when Queen Elizabeth visits, she does so as the Queen of Canada. When our Parliament opens, it does so with ceremony involving a Mace and various rites that are meant to demonstrate and 'fix' the great importance and solemnity of the occasion. (Afetr Parliament opens, it's often little better than a disorganized house of ill repute filled with lots of people who should rightly be elsewhere doing something useful. Organizing the hoir would be useful, but that would require thinking, and that ability is not a legal requirement to either vote or get elected in this country.) We have vestiges of older days around us. We incorporate that into our lives to greater or lesser degrees. That also includes religious stuff, rightly or wrongly.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:30 AM

It's a matter for a court to decide whether the boundary line gets crossed or not, Strick. I think your batting at a straw man here. I agree that the proposal seems silly in contrast with the power of inertia and keeping things as they are, but I believe it might be very clarifying to the nature of the nation. There's a certain hypocrisy in claiming to forbid government bias in support of one or another religion, while sprinkling the day-to-day scene with Christian arcana (one-eyed pyramids and Gott Mitt Uns bumoper stickers).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:26 AM

"What you believe is your business. The secular argument offered here is that the drapes and tokens of those beliefs which are religous have no place in the public corridors espoused or erected by government -- courthouses, congresses, government buildings, currency, national rituals such as the Pledge of ALlegiance, and so on."

Amos, however silly I think what you suggest is, I'm not that offended by it. Look at the original proposal put forward in this thread:

I believe strongly in the separation of religion and state, and believe we need to go to the next level, which to me is to ban religion from participation in the public square.

Have I misunderstood the word participation? Combined with multiple assertions that it's improper for me to support position X or Y because someone else has determined that the only reason to support it is religious (or, worse, as Guest suggests, someone is conservative), what else am I to thinnk? Not only will I be able to acknowledge that my faith (or lack of it) is the reason for my support of a proposition, other people will be able to veto it because THEY conclude I support it for the wrong reason.

Someone is uncomfortable with mentioning what is a relevant factor for 70-80% of the population and wants it removed as a result? There's a word for attitudes like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:05 AM

Strick:

What you believe is your business. The secular argument offered here is that the drapes and tokens of those beliefs which are religous have no place in the public corridors espoused or erected by government -- courthouses, congresses, government buildings, currency, national rituals such as the Pledge of ALlegiance, and so on.

Whether your actions or political arguments stem from ytour religious beliefs, or they stem from Dr Atkins, or beatings from your grandmother, is irrelevant, so you are absolutely right that WHY you support a given law is irrelevant. However, if you support a law that infringes on others' rights and freedoms, or favors one or another religion, then there's a problem.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 08:42 AM

"'The Constitution is now where near so specific about religion that it forbids passing laws that I support as a result of my religious beliefs, Amos.'

"Actually, that is exactly what it prohibits. And the Supreme Court, in it's decisions down through the years, has broadly and narrowly interpreted the 1st, but it has never waivered on the use of religion, even the religion and religious based traditions of the country's founders and framers of the constitution."

Poppycock.

"'At that the Supreme Court of California just ruled a Catholic charity was not a religious organization for the purpose of exempting it from hiring laws. If it isn't a religious organization for that, it isn't one for the purposes of withholding Federal funding either.'

That wasn't what the ruling said. The ruling said that religious organizations can't discriminate in hiring in ways that violate the constitution, which simply holds them to the same standards as every other employer."

On the contrary, the court acknowledged the law allowed churches and other related religious institutions to hire as their religious beliefs dictate. The ruling was based on the notion that the charities weren't religious instititions.


"Why can't we have JUST ONE LOUSY THREAD where we can discuss the extremely negative aspects of religion in politics and public life, from a secular perspective, without being beaten down by the Mudcat religious?"

I'm sorry, Guest, you should have told us you were just looking for validation for your views and didn't want an exchange that involved the people whose views you were trying to exclude from the public debate. Next time tell us when you start the thread. We assumed that when you included religion in the thread subject we were entitled to an opinion. As it was, you were no more beaten down that I would have been for posting a thread about the extremely positive apsects of religion. I didn't set the tone for the general conversation at Mudcat, I adapted to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 09:03 PM

There ya go. Why should it? A classic example. The reason is they wanted, in the Eisenhower years, to clearly differentiate themselves as tyhe US Gummint from them damned Godless Commies, who thought the answer was to suppress ALL religions.

A bad answer, actually, to a thorny problem that fortunately is no longer relevant. People I know who have been there say that the Russians are some of the most spiritual, but not necessarily rewligous, people anywhere, but I can't speak to that. Point is it is a classic example of mixing up the secular with the religous in ays that they might be better left apart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:36 PM

awww..c'mon, Little Hawk...you're changing the use of the word "God" to suit YOU, then creating a little rant about one of your favotite topics..*grin*

Even though I can agree that "... religious mottos on coins is not as serious a matter...etc..", the important word there is "as"...Religious mottos on money is still 'serious' as part of a pervasive attempt by some to make religion the default idea, and make folks work hard to see any other possibility. (I grew up with the Pledge of Allegiance NOT having "under God" in it...I NEVER understood why they had to add it)

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:03 PM

Why would an atheist object to the phrase "In God We Trust" being on American money? The $$$$ IS itself THE reigning god in America, so the statement is entirely accurate and fits the whole sad and sorry situation, and is basically pretty atheistic at the same time as far as I can see...as atheism is generally understood, I mean. Worship of legal tender is not the same of worship of a supreme being, but it can be even more powerful when it comes to motivating people's actions. Anyone noticed that?

Just don't interpret those words in a way that offends YOU and it works for you. But some people are so eager to be offended...

It is the fact that people worship money that offends me, not the fact that a quasi-religious, patently misleading, and largely insincere motto is inscribed on that money.

Once again, I believe it's a matter of obsessing about the cover while not reading the book that is consuming Guest's attention. The existence of some old engraved religious mottos on coins is not as serious a matter as the complete domination of people's lives by greed for money and material success...at the cost of personal integrity, honesty, and sanity.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:17 PM

To return to the thread -- assume for a moment that all citizens of the country have strongly felt religous beliefs, with the usual attachments (icons, moral guidelines, judgements of goodness and badness and so on). Assume further that you want to develop a country which promotes individual freedoms to the greatest extent possible.

Given those premises, I submit that Guest's proposal of taking all religous icons of any kind out of the public arena (such as dollar bills, public ceremonies, and so on) would be better for the country than it would be to have one or another of those many religions favored by some aspect of the establishment. Because to do otherwise automatically tends to minimize or trivialize the citizenship of those who have other beliefs. And doing that is counter to the goal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:10 PM

You got it, John: The term "fundamentalist" Christian seems to imply that if we don't want to have that label sewn to our baseball cap, we don't believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It's kinda like being called a "liberal." Or a "conservative." The term Fundamentalist Christian has become a part of our language, for better or worse and applies to a particular group of Christians.

Like most labels, "Fundamentalist" Christian elicits all sorts of negative (and if you consider that you're a Fundamentalist Christian, positive) images. I'm a Christian. Brucie is a Christian. We don't think alike. But, we have some basic beliefs in common. And Guest, if you think we're high-jacking your thread, then don't sprinkle terms like fundamentalist christian in your postings.

Any thread worth it's salt is worth high-jacking for awhile. Mine usually are, and they are more interesting for it..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:10 PM

It's just a semantic corruption, John -- you could describe yourself as a "basic" Christian and be understood, but "fundamentyalist" has come to mean someone who is actually a literalist, and often a moral dogmatic, rather than one who believes in the fundamentals. For example, I would argue that "The kingdom of heaven is within you" and "Greather things than I have done, ye shall do" and "Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these..." are fundamental teachings of the Christian faith.

The funny thing is that someone who insists that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a more important policy is more likely to be called a fundamentalist!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:00 PM

...on second thought, don't answer that, Jerry.

It's just a personal peave of mine that "fundamentalist" should be at the most a neutral word -- meaning one who believes in the fundamentals of a belief system. Ground is ceded when we allow others to define what we believe, and meaning is lost when one can no longer refer to themselves as a "fundamentalist" because those who are not fundamentalists now wear the wrong moniker.

But it's not your fault. I understand your desire to distance yourself. It's just that in doing it as you felt you had to, you necessarily imply that you do not believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith.......and that necessary leaves one to wonder why you would consider yourself a christian if you do not believe in its fundamentals.

complicated, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:59 PM

Dear GUEST:

The closing argument is somewhat abrupt. I will start a thread entitled, "The negative aspects of orthodox religions."

You start a thread entitled "The positive aspects of orthodox religions."

I'm willin' to bet that the one you start will be addressed by many of the same people who have posted on this thread. They are thinking people.

I am willin' to bet that the one I start will be addressed by many of the same people who have posted on this thread. They are thinking people.

This is the best site on the 'net (IMO) BECAUSE of that. I would almost guarantee that folks will be back and forth between the two because they can see two sides of the issues.

I believe in God. Not one single person who posts with a name has ever called me an idiot for that belief. Maybe that's because I have never said I think THEY should believe in God. We can argue it, and we do. There are lots of way-far-smarter-than-me people on the 'cat. I have said I believe that prayer helps. Some people have written to say they don't think it does. We certainly don't fight about it. Threads here are a 'writing' in progress. I would be sadly disappointed if threads didn't get 'hijacked'. God, one thread that was posted got hijacked within four posts--and it was re-hijacked in three others. If any of us post a statement about our beliefs, there will be those who agree, others who disagree, and some who don't care--and will or will not say so.

Or. if you prefer, you can start BOTH threads.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:58 PM

Good question, John: I can't think of a single "fundamental" I have a problem with (I know this isn't supposed to be about flavors of Christianity, so I'll be brief.) It's more a general mind-set of superiority and judgment that bothers me. Most of all, I don't cotton to people who are so constantly belittling others, rather than trying to get that 2x4 out of their own eye... whatever their beliefs. I have enough trouble trying to stay on track in my own life.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:53 PM

So what "fundamentals" of the faith do you take exception with, Jerry?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:45 PM

Well stated, Strick.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:45 PM

Guest: You're not talking about Christians?

I quote you from your 11:35 posting today:

"because of the fundamentalist Christian domination of mainstream politics."

"fundamentalist Christian political agenda."

"conservative protestantism"

I do stand corrected however. You seem to differentiate between conservative and fundamentalist Christians and the rest of us (who I suspect are the majority.) Sometimes the most vocal contingent is the smallest one.

I don't want to make this a thread about Christianity, and I do believe that you don't, either. I'm sure that I'm not as upset about fundamentalist Christians as you are, but believe me, I AM upset about what they are doing, too.

They give Christianity a bad name.

I wish you well, by the way..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:38 PM

Another victory for the Christian bullies. You win. I'm done.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:02 PM

"No I wouldn't respond, because it is such an outrageously silly suggestion. I also tend to stay out of most the threads that have anything to do with religion, because of the tyranny of the religious majority in them."

Just as I consider this thread a silly suggestion. It's nothing but a thread about religion, however.

"I would never ask that a person leave their faith at home. I simply ask that you not attempt to impose your faith's values on me and the society we all live in. Just like our constitution says. I don't prohibit your practice of your faith/religion, and you don't impose your religion/faith on me by government mandates, programs, and preferences."

The problem is that in this you're trying to impose your values on society just like I am. You want to turn that debate into a one sided affair and re-interpret the Constitution to your liking (sorry, that's not what it says). Like Jerry, I've never tried to impose my religious views on anyone, just tried to see that my values are reasonably represented in the public debate. Those values can't exist without my faith. I don't generally put them forward as religious issues, but you seem intent on trying to determine which of my values are offensive to you because of what you assume to be their source.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:38 PM

Jerry, here is what you just don't seem to be willing or able (I don't know which) to get.

This thread isn't a conversation about different kinds of Christians, or what kind of Christian you yourself happen to be.

Nowhere in my opening post did I use the word 'Christian'. I said orthodox religion.

So why are we discussing all the different varieties of Christians and Christianity, and which hybrid you are? That isn't the subject of the thread, so why are you trying to turn the conversation into yet another Christian referendum?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:23 PM

Confusinger and confusinger. Man, if ever people were talking at angles to each other, this is the thread where it's happening. As to our Guest, I think that it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so angry. Any comments that are made seem to be considered inflammatory.

One of the major falacies of any argument, from my admittedly un-scholarly perspective (although I did go two years toward a Doctorate) is that it's a major flaw in any discussion when people are lumped into the most negative judgment. Christians, who range from Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer to Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell are all characterized as trying to stuff their religion down the throats of the secular folks. Being one of them Christians you have such antagonism toward (or condescend to) I think that it's not all that important that there be prayer at school, or football games.
Same goes for a public display of the The Ten Commandments. I don't have a problem with banning that kind of public display. By the same token, if you want to get all wound up about something, why don't you get upset about the increasingly ugly music videos, or marketing of sex? I don't suggest censorship of videos, but when rap songs glorify being a Pimp, and clothing for little girls have messages to bite my booty on them, I wonder what's going on in this country. I feel that the values of a corporate driven music industry are being crammed down MY throat.

As I've stated, many of my friends in here, and in my daily life and family are Atheists. We get along just fine. Just as not every Christian is a narrow-minded, judgmental fool, not all Atheists feel that they are suffering under the tyranny of religion.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:22 PM

I would never ask that a person leave their faith at home. I simply ask that you not attempt to impose your faith's values on me and the society we all live in. Just like our constitution says. I don't prohibit your practice of your faith/religion, and you don't impose your religion/faith on me by government mandates, programs, and preferences.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:17 PM

I try to stay out of most threads regarding religion because I inevitably either lose my temper or get extremely upset.

But I do want to say - that like many with faith - my faith and my life CANNOT be seperated - becuase my faith is part of every facet of my life. I can't "leave it at home".

I don't pretend that I always manage to live up to the tenets of my faith - but I do try.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:08 PM

"If I started a thread on why secular humanist should not be allowed to put forth views that are purely secular into the public debate you wouldn't respond?"

No I wouldn't respond, because it is such an outrageously silly suggestion. I also tend to stay out of most the threads that have anything to do with religion, because of the tyranny of the religious majority in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:56 PM

Guest, this is an open forum. If I started a thread on why secular humanist should not be allowed to put forth views that are purely secular into the public debate you wouldn't respond? How can you possible argue that anyone is too conservative and conventionally minded to hav an honest discussion? Aren't you really saying that since they disagree with you and use a "inferior" form of decision making, they aren't entitled to a voice? No two ways about it, that so bigoted it's hard to imagine.

The whole point of this thread has been that you expect a significant portion of the population to deny who they are why they think what they do so they can participate in the public debate. You want to start that now?

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:47 PM

Sucular humanism has always seemed to me to be about as silly as any other organized religion, with its particular dogma and lack of interest in anyone else's opinion.

GUEST 3:22 PM, please state the point that you wish to discuss. Is it the same one suggested by GUEST 7 MAR 1:55 PM? That is, "ban religion from participation in the public square?" OK, I would agree with no large monuments, trees, etc., paid for with public funds or occupying space that belongs to the citizenry at large. Or are you suggesting, as later discussion by members and other GUESTS indicate, that no individual should allow his or her religious beliefs or upbringing to affect the way in which he or she interacts in the public sphere?

Now, GUEST 12:44 PM said that "what I mean when I say ban religion from the public square, I mean no more "In God We Trust". No more oath taking on bibles, or any other religious document. I mean no school vouchers for religious schools. I mean no federal funding to faith based charities. I mean removing any vestiges of references to the Judeo-Christian god, out of our public documents, and our public discourse. This would include the highest levels of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Get it all out. Out, out, out. This is a pretty clear statement, and entirely reasonable, except for the part about oath taking. Some peoples' individual beliefs mandate that they use a bible or some other religious text when taking an oath for it to be valid. I'd argue that these people have a right to make what they consider to be a valid oath. Other than that, I don't think anyone here would disagree with this or with the ideas presented by any of the GUESTS present.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:34 PM

Actually, GUEST 3:27, I don't think that my anonymity is the issue in this one. Well, it is partially the issue for some people. But I think it really is more a question that people here are just too conservative and conventionally minded, to have an honest discussion about this subject. And that those who aren't, either don't want to agree with me for fear of appearing to be on the anon guest side of any question, or they just don't want to ruffle their friends feathers here, and so go along to get along.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:27 PM

happens a lot when you are faceless and invisible.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:22 PM

"Leave the secular humanists to decide who can and cannot speak, what they can say and what they said."

Again Strick, you are coming back at me hysterically, and attempting to put words in my mouth I clearly never said.

"No need for the people who are being silenced to have a point of view"

Christ, no one is silencing you. The Mudcat religious currently are preaching their views to the interested, the frustrated, and bored over in the "Faith" thread, the "Same Sex Marriage" thread, the "Anti-Semitism and the Left" thread, the "Just Saw Mel's Film" thread, the "Mel's Dad No Holocaust" thread...

I am merely voicing my frustration that the Mudcat religious constantly bully their way into every conversation like this.

Why can't we have JUST ONE LOUSY THREAD where we can discuss the extremely negative aspects of religion in politics and public life, from a secular perspective, without being beaten down by the Mudcat religious?

"Would you hesitate for a moment if the shoe were on the other foot and we were trying to force you to our way of thinking?"

I am not trying to force anyone to accept my way of thinking. I am asking for respect, and some space to have a discussion that you obviously don't want to take place, here or likely anywhere in your presence. I am tired of being bullied here.

Subject: RE: BS: Secularity vs Religion
From: Strick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:55 PM

"I am not trying to dictate what the conversation is, as all threads do drift. But this thread has become just another religion thread, with those usual suspects (no insult intended) here at Mudcat who identify themselves as Christians and/or conservative traditionalists, no matter how nice they are and how unlike the nasty "fundies" everyone loves to hate they are, attempting to hijack the conversation, and drag it down to the level of yet another thread full of religious diatribes.

I really don't understand why this forum finds it so difficult to allow secularist humanists to hold a conversation, without being beaten over the head by well-intentioned Christian members, who feel (compusively, apparently) that they MUST stand up for their religion here, whenever the discussion is about getting religion out of our public lives."

What amazing hypocracy! Leave the secular humanists to decide who can and cannot speak, what they can say and what they said. No need for the people who are being silenced to have a point of view, you'll tell us what point of view we're allowed to have.

How can you possibly be surprised that we won't just shut up and go away so you can decide our future for us?   Would you hesitate for a moment if the shoe were on the other foot and we were trying to force you to our way of thinking? What an ass.